July 16, 2012

I'm getting these via Paul Constant at Slog, who says this about the Obama ad:

Holy fucking shit. This is the most brutal attack ad I've seen in a long, long time. It minces the hell out of Romney's offshore fortunes and his record as a jobs exporter (in the private and public sectors). And it makes fun of Romney's singing voice, turning his version of "America, the Beautiful" into a symbol of his warped view of patriotism... This is just an incredible, devastating attack ad. I don't know if it's going to turn any hearts and minds to Obama, but it's going to sure as hell send the Romney campaign reeling. And the Obama campaign likes it when the Romney campaign is reeling.

It's weak sauce. First of all, you can't argue against negative campaigning in a negative ad. Second, both Romney and Obama have both used negative ads before, so this is nothing new. What this ad is complaining about is that Obama's negative ads are working.

Here's the "brutal" Obama ad:

And here's the "weak sauce" Romney ad:

A few thoughts:

1. The Obama ad is nicely done artistically. It's different.

2. People generally experience Obama as more human than Romney. The new Obama ad undercuts efforts to portray Romney as plastic and robotic. Remember when Hillary Clinton got caught singing the National Anthem badly?

The impulse to use this clip to mock Hillary backfired. People tend to find sincere but bad singing endearing — and this can be especially good for a candidate who has been coming across as too controled. It's "a completely humanizing moment."

3. The Romney ad is much less striking. Unlike the Obama ad, it doesn't grab attention as a beautifully crafted short film. It looks do-it-yourself and webby. There's humility to it. Just wondering what happened to the hope, you know. It oddly resonates with the Obama ad that tries to humiliate Romney for singing badly. America is oriented — generally — toward liking Obama, the man. That's a mysterious process. Hard to see exactly why it happened and how it could be reversed. Obama is relying on it... and relying on the seeming impossibility that anyone could love Romney. The Romney ad very gently tries to undermine the love. He gave us hope. Where is the hope?

Obama's ads are not working. The needle has not moved at all in Obama's direction (of a noticeable amount). At least, that's the impression I've gotten from polls. The Romney campaign has not been reeling, in the process of having reeled or preparing to reel at all.

Remember: They cut campaign ads when there was snow on the ground to counter punch ads that the Obama campaign released. They have turn around times of -one day-, if that, to respond to attack ads with other ads. Anyone who thinks the Romney campaign is slipshod, off-kilter or somehow unprepared is deluding themselves.

I'll grant that what we see in these videos depends on what we already think. But having said that, I'm amazed that anybody would think that the Obama ad is anything but pathetic.

"Romney's not the solution. He's the problem."

Are you serious, Barack? You're trying to blame the economic disaster you've presided over--from Cash for Clunkers to Solyndra, with Obamacare along the way--on what Romney did at Bain from 1977 to 1999, when the '90s were a boom decade? Or as the governor of a single state?

Most pathetic thing of all is the comments section over there, featuring the standard smug ignorance of the garden-variety Obamabot:

Yes, the ad does assume a basic level of literacy on the part of viewers...

To refer back to a comment in an earlier thread...you bet your ass people can be both "educated" and ignorant when what they're being taught is bullshit.

It minces the hell out of Romney's offshore fortunes and his record as a jobs exporter

Well, when you're not that bright and easily misled, then sure, you take these things as "facts."

At that point it becomes the most awesomest, super-duper ad ever!!!111@@@#!~!

It does!

Note: I love watching the President who has 36 staffers owing a combined $800,000 + in back taxes calling on Romney to relase his tax returns.

Note 2: I love the President who closed over 700 GM dealerships (and sold Chrysler to an Italian multinational corporation) and cancelled Delphi pensions brag about it, but pretend Bain Capital outsources.

Note 3: 30% of the last 3 years' income for the Obama's was generated from foreign sources.

"I do agree that Romney needs to shut up with the tired "You better apologize to me". Has that ever worked?"

-- It worked for Ann Romney. Also, usually in politics, people spin things. Or, once a fact checker calls someone, they back off. I can't think of an election where staffers call the other person a felon and then use the excuse: "We don't know if this is true, but what if it is?" on actual television shows. That's low grade attack ads you expect from your fringe (Walker could be indicted any day now! Obama was born in Kenya!) not from your paid shills on prime time. This used to be beneath the paid shills.

So, why vote for Obama? Because he is a nice guy? Not looking all that nice recently. Rather, looks somewhat nasty and vicious to me recently.

In the long run, I think that Romney's strategy of staying above much of the fray, and not going personally negative, is going to help him, as Obama and his campaign dig his hole deeper and deeper.

I think that many Americans have some sympathy for the hard-ass that gets things done. Think Donald Trump, and, esp. with his TV show, where someone was always "fired". But much less sympathy when the person if vicious and petty at the same time, which is looking more and more like President Obama. Instead of spending time running the country, he is spending what little time he isn't playing golf or sleeping in, collecting money for his campaign, or sliming his opponent.

I usually watch TV while I'm doing other things. So I really mostly listen to TV. If I just listen to these two ads I hear Romney singing about America and people who fthink Obama is running a negative campaign. To my ear both ads sound great about Romney. Not so great about Obama. And, incidentally, Romney sings it very sincerely and doesn't sound bad at all. I remember hearing Hillary sing the National Anthem and it made me like her a little bit in spite of myself. This seems like a draw or a slight edge for Romney.

I'm seeing and anti-Obama ad along the lines of "Obama spent billions to bail out GM, GM shipped jobs to China, Mexico, South Korea and Japan." "Obama held fundraisers in Switzerland, Sweden, Paris and Communist China," "Obama gave millions of taxpayre money to Solyndra, and other green companies, they went bankrupt," and so on.

Neither ad did much for me, but Obama's ad made me think of Obama's poor performance.

Jay - except, as I understand it, TARP money was used to help bail out the Delphi union pensions. And, of course, TARP money was used to bail out the GM and Chrysler union pensions too (no such luck for the non-union pensioners, of course).

Remember when TARP was being sold to us to support the banking system? Well, much of that was paid back, actually making a little money for the government. But, then, it was used to bail out GM, Chrysler, and Delphi union pensioners, and AIG, the company insuring Goldman Sachs (and, thus, the pensions, etc. of Obama's top financial advisers), and many billions were lost. GM itself (excluding Delphi) is likely to cost us almost $40 billion, and maybe more, as the company's stock price continues to erode, thanks to its continuing union costs, pensions, and work rules, along with being essentially run (badly) by the government.

First, who the Hell is Paul Constant and why should we care about his opinion?

What's devastating about the Romney ad is it's Bob Schieffer of Black Rock asking, "Whatever happened to Hopenchange?", and you have Brooks and others saying, in effect, "It's gone and all Choom has left is personal attacks".

Axelrod's ad is the same old stuff which, as Matthew notes, aren't working.

shiloh said...

Remember when Obama beat McCain 53/46?

Remember when McCain easily defeated mittens in the 2008 primary?

Remember how mittens won the 2012 Rep primary by default running against several train wrecks!

Remember when Stimulus was supposed to cut unemployment to 5.7%?

Remember the Food Stamp President?

Remember when gas prices were half what they are now (like when Zero began his rule)?

Remember how Zero got seriously embarrassed in the Southern primaries?

The process that followed resulted in Delphi union retiree pensions being “topped off” with $1 billion of federal money, while more than 21,000 non-union Delphi retirees nationally took cuts ranging from 30 to 70 percent. GM owned Delphi until 1996, and Delphi still supplies auto components to the auto manufacturer.

If you're non-union, "bailouts" are something you pay for. Not receive.

Team O's punch line -- Romney is not the solution, he's the problem -- doesn't make any sense and will come back to haunt them.

The focus of O's attack is that Bain (and Romney) pursued its own interest as a private investor, and chose investments based on an estimation that they might return a profit. Well, of course. But how is investing the "problem" if what is in need of a solution is a slow economy with poor job creation? Team O's "investments" (with other people's money) behaved the same way (e.g., GM's buying parts on a least-cost basis), or they failed (like Solyndra). It's a global economy, after all, and every major player is looking at opportunities globally, not parochially. (That's also the essence of O's point when he is talking about the impact of the EU debt crisis or the serial crises in Japan, etc., on the US economy.)

An ad like O's isn't intended to appeal to anyone's rationality -- it's purely a pitch to the emotions. But even at that level, I think it's a failure. Romney's off-key signing is what holds your attention, while the pictures of shuttered businesses and bleak urban landscapes get lost behind the wordy placards about Bain's shipping jobs overseas. Even more stiking, there are no shots of down-on-their-luck, out-of-work people to get the emotional juices flowing. Team O should ditch Axelrod and go find today's Evans-Agee team if they want to praise (or condemn) famous me in a memorable way.

Instead, this ad is just slick in a way that will be visually striking only to those who are impervious to persuasion by such things -- the committed partisans of both sides (who will love or hate it, respectively), plus a few like Ann who get off on production values. I don't see this ad as being especially effective with low-information voters paying passing attention to such things. A good chunck of those voters won't even know what Bain is.

Romney's ad wants to say that O is really a nasty little Chicago hack, but he hasn't found an effective way to say that. This ad won't do it, but it also has no downside that could come back and bite him.

Romney's ad wants to say that O is really a nasty little Chicago hack, but he hasn't found an effective way to say that. This ad won't do it, but it also has no downside that could come back and bite him.

Barrett lost Wisconsin in part because Chicago hacks screwed with the election with personal safety threats to Walker from outside union goons. Things haven't gone that far--yet

Romney is playing it like Walker did so far. Let the Chicago-mob-gone-national show its ugly face. A majority of Americans recognize it and are repulsed by it. Obama on the other hand embraces the thuggery.

Of course, some of us are old enough to remember that Carter beat Ford in the 1976 election after Ford beat Reagan in the primary, and Carter went on to be crushed by Reagan in the election four years later.

Is "crushed" a fair evaluation of a 51-41 loss? Others have been defeated by larger margins in my lifetime. Goldwater, McGovern, and Mondale all lost by 20 points or close to it. However, they were all challengers. The worst an incumbent has done in my lifetime was Carter's 10-point loss in a 3-way race. (Don't forget John Anderson's 7 percent.) Whether Obama can beat Carter's record remains to be seen.

"What’s clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors. He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm’s partners and investors. When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain. Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses.

What’s less clear is how his skills are relevant to the job of overseeing the U.S. economy, strengthening competitiveness and looking out for the welfare of the general public, especially the middle class."

While I was taking my time editing my 10:03 comment and making sure the greater-than and therefore symbols would work, Ross beat me to the punch and said much the same thing at 9:40. Great minds think alike, even if some are a lot slower than others.

Also, they are not creating jobs. The 8%+ unemployment is clear that they are net losing jobs. Unless, you don't count lost jobs against them and only give them credit. Which I guess works. But, that seems a real awkward way to measure an economy.

Also, they are the government. Which you can't credit for the private sector hiring people.

Here's one. Remember when Fact Check was citing things as true, but false, and not giving any marks at all when Obama was flagrantly telling the not truth? They've given in, it looks, and are just calling him on it now. His campaign's fault for not getting the warning.

Hey shiloh, politics isn't beanbag - by which you mean your Asshole-in-Chief can constantly lie with your approval - and neither is blogging, so go fuck yourself, you cunt.

Obama is the most lying Presidential candidate we have ever had. We all know you'd give a blow job to the Felon-in-Chief if you could, so really, what value is there in anything you shit out of your kwyboard?

What is it with Democrats and international trade nowadays? Bill Clinton promoted international trade, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc.

Now we have a Republican running for president who has practiced international trade quite successfully and, all of the sudden, international trade is horrific. It's be nice to have someone in the White House who acutally knows what they're doing.

Also a recent poll indicates folk still blames cheney/bush more than Obama for the bad economy er Bush recession.

Now, see, Jay, that's an idiot. Assertion without link, BDS snark that Cheney was the brains of the administration and the childish lower case use of "bush/cheney" while capitalizing "Obama." Add the tortured syntax and misspellings, and there you have one of Axelrod's finest.

I have no doubt they will be allowed. I have little doubt they don't want to do it. George Sr is old and in less than great health and George Jr, unlike Obama, doesn't seem to have a hard-on for publicity and fame.

Also a recent poll indicates folk still blames cheney/bush more than Obama for the bad economy er Bush recession.

And one might want to check the job approval rating of Scott, Snyder, kasich, Corbett etc.

But that doesn't stop them from making a claim that Romney had bought a fetus disposal company, even though he was gone and Obama is the one who defines an unborn baby as potentially no more than "medical waste" right up to the first breath.

The fact that Romney says he left is just that much more evidence of his guilt, you know.

'shiloh' is a dishonest little weasel. I pointed out that Carter's 10-point loss to Reagan was the worst loss by an incumbent in my lifetime. She quotes Bush I's 37.5% share of the vote in 1992, without mentioning that Clinton only got 43% (a lot less than McCain!) because Ross Perot was getting 19%. So Bush I lost by 5.5%, which is a whole lot less than Carter's 10% loss (9.7%, if you want to be picky). I'm sure 'shiloh' knows that, hence the epithets in my first sentence.

If you remove the 3rd-party votes, and count relative shares of the 2-party vote, Carter lost by 10.5% (55.3-44.7), and Bush I by 7% (53.5-46.5). Any way you look at it, Carter is still the biggest (incumbent) loser in my lifetime - at least so far.

"and since you didn't build it, we have the right to tell you exactly how to run it, to tax your profits as much as we want, and to take it away from you when we wish."

MICKEY KAUS: Will Republicans Take Advantage of Obama’s New Welfare Weakness?

The Obama Department of Agriculture has pulled the radio”novelas” that urged Spanish-speakers to wise up and get on the dole. (“In one of these, an individual tries to convince a friend to enroll in food stamps even though that friend declares: ‘I don’t need anyone’s help. My husband earns enough to take care of us,” says GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, describing the novelas. “The first individual replies back: ‘When are you going to learn?’”)

Why is the USDA’s retreat significant? Because it shows the administration is sensitive, in an election year, to being perceived as dismissive of the work ethic. Like a prize fighter who winces when you hit him in a sore spot, the Obamaites have revealed their weakness. If the Republicans’ have any strategic sense they will now hit that sore spot again by making a big fuss about the Health and Human Service regulations that renege on the work requirements imposed on welfare recipients by the 1996 welfare reform law (and its successors). If Romney, Boehner and McConnell can’t frame these regs as part (along with the food stamp push) of Obama’s cavalier disregard for the value of work–in embarrassing contradiction to the image he portrayed in 2008–they should really retire to Austria with Denise Rich.

'shiloh' dishonestly pretends (10:32) that I'm defending Bush I when in fact I refuted (10:03) her stupid stupid argument (9:30) and she doesn't have the grace or honesty to admit it. Typical 'shiloh'.

There's another aspect to the Obama attack ad that I find troubling: That is the profoundly schizophrenic attitude of our political parties -- fully reflecting a schizophrenic citizenry -- about foreign trade, foreign relations, immigration, and the world economy.

I'll try to find time to elaborate, but suffice to say: The no-nothing party is alive and well in this country and Obama is its leader.

I do agree that Romney needs to shut up with the tired "You better apologize to me". Has that ever worked?

Romney is a smart man. He knows very well he'd never get an apology from Obama: the call for an apology is rhetorical. It's not a whiny demand vented out of frustration or anger, but rather a rhetorical (and pugilistic) pivot point.

1) Romney is calling Obama's Bain attack out as a slanderous lie. How often did we wish McCain had called out the lies of the 2008 campaign (especially those about Palin) as lies? Instead he said nothing, and those lies took root. Romney's making the point that the Obama campaign is unworthy of a POTUS and shaking some of that supposed Obama "likability."

2) With the MSM spotlight on Bain and the (non)apology story (MSM fodder meant to distract from the economy and Obama's record), Romney seizes the opportunity and MSM spotlight to counter Obama and mount his own offense-- communicating some very sharp points.

Commenter Miss Marple over at Ace's reports that Romney was on FOX this morning, doing the following:

1. In response to the president's refusal to apologize, he pointed out that the entire thing is an attempt to distract from Obama's terrible record on jobs.2. On Rahm saying he should quit whining, he said when someone falsely accuses you of a crime, you get a bit upset. He is proud of his ethical business record3. On business in general, he pointed out the forgiveness of government loans to political donors (Solyndra, etc.) stinks to high heaven.4. On transparency, he pointed out the executive orders regarding Fast and Furious, which he said was unprecedented and something else (maybe suspicious).

So, he used the openings Obama gave him to talk about Obama's terrible jobs record, the fake accusations and his own excellent ethical record, the graft and corruption with companies like Solyndra, and the White House involvement in Fast and Furious.

damikesc said...So Obama further shoots his load. Mitt hasn't even BEGUN to slam Obama...so Obama is sacrificing his only plus...his alleged likeability....to remain tied in the polls. Good plan.

You wish.

Obama is trying to define Romney and not let Romney define himself. It's an old ploy and it's working. He's already tricked Romney into asking for an apology. Bad move by Romney. Looks weak and keeps the attention on the attack, not Obama's weaknesses or Romney's strengths.

The election isn't far away. With meaningless conventions, it is already in the home stretch. Obama recognizes this. Mitt is still doing warm ups.

... Wait, wait, wait? Calling someone a criminal is seen as an excellent campaign strategy? Demanding someone apologize for calling you a criminal is a sign of weakness?

How much money has Obama spent to barely break even with Romney? Am I really supposed to believe that the guy who is sitting back, being called a criminal, making an argument and asking for an apology, is the one arguing from the position of weakness? Not the guy asking me to imagine what it would be like if his opponent were a criminal?

For someone to still believe this, is surprising, but it also explains how they could evaluate McCain and Obama side by side and create a caricature of one as an out of control old man on the verge of senility, and the other as a smart, capable reformer who would improve the political climate. There was no real evidence of either one, just a feeling from this statement or a stumble or a look.

Cruel neutrality is often trumped by the fallacy of intuition, which is often just the blindness of bias.

"So Obama further shoots his load. Mitt hasn't even BEGUN to slam Obama"

This is spot on. What else does Obama have other than the charge that Romney is an evil businessman? This is far to early to bring this out, as it will be worn thin by election time, and then the economy will be all that's left to talk about.

I suspect that Obama has no choice since it's all he's got and he's hoping that: 1) the economy might improve in the next few months, and 2) he can rehash this again at the end and get something from it. Both are long shots. He's just desperate.

"Retail sales in the U.S. unexpectedly fell for a third month in June"; a decrease of 0.5%.

"Stocks fell as the retail sales report prompted economists at Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Credit Suisse to lower their forecasts for economic growth in the second quarter. A cooling job market is sapping the household spending that makes up 70 percent of the economy, curbing sales at retailers such as Target Corp. (TGT) and Macy’s Inc."

Something the Romney campaign needs to bring to life is how ridiculous it would be to have called on Obama to fix the Olympics instead of Romney. It made sense to call Romney then, it would make sense now, but Obama?

Obama's attempt to bring them to Chicago failed miserably even though he was the most powerful person in the world and very popular.

When a person thinks in those terms about these two men, who to vote for becomes very clear.

"If there was a good deal of time back and forth in the first few months and some business conducted all the way through to December ("pretty much exclusively"), and if Romney's own lawyer tells an inquiry that Romney's work for Bain "continued unabated just as they had," then it is incontrovertibly true that Romney's statement under oath that he was not involved "in any way" in Bain business after February 1999 was a lie under oath.

I thought Republicans cared about perjury when it comes to high office. I mean, they impeached a sitting president for it. But their current candidate is an obvious perjurer and thereby a felon."

It makes you laugh to think that anyone would tap Obama for the olympics job.

But as to the ads, the effect on people with preferences is very much shaped by their preference. I dislike Obama, so the Romney add sounds great to me. For the same reason (and because I have respect for the truth), I hate the Obama ad.

But I have no idea about the effectiveness of the ads on swing voters. I assume they both work, or else they would not be running. And I think the subject of each has a chance of sticking to the other side. If Obama is viewed as too negative, it will hurt him. And, if Obama can make Romney's business into a negative, it obviously will hurt him. My guess is that Obama eventually pays a price for being too negative as a sitting president.

"[A]t every point, Romney has surrendered to the fringe of his party. Weak. And now in his first tough encounter with Barack Obama, Romney is being shoved around again. This is not what a president looks like - anyway, not a successful president."

When Mitt Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts a decade ago, Democrats went before a state commission to demand that he be struck from the ballot. Their argument: After taking over the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, he had ceased to live and work in Massachusetts

Also note:no evidence has yet emerged that Mr. Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds’ investments after he left

Romney's statement under oath that he was not involved "in any way" in Bain business after February 1999 was a lie under oath.

As was pointed out --- it was quite accurate. He left Bain in 2/99. Nobody knew if he would return, so he was officially CEO while not actually doing anything (since his departure was not negotiated at the time). He was still on the boards and legally he had to be named as CEO until his departure was negotiated.

Sullivan is such a clown. His dementia (the cause of which is, of course, up for conjecture) has made him a laughingstock. Sadly, he is one of the brighter lights on the Daily Beast --- but that speaks more of the quality of that shithole than anything else.

At every point, Romney has surrendered to the fringe of his party. Weak. And now in his first tough encounter with Barack Obama, Romney is being shoved around again. This is not what a president looks like - anyway, not a successful president."

But a gay investigative obstetrician --- THAT is money, baby!

It'd be endlessly amusing to have Romney win and deport him. It'd improve the US immensely. He should have been deported due to his record anyway.

Machine: Bush created few jobs because we were effectively at full employment during his two terms. Obama "created" lots of jobs in the sense that some jobs were recovered after a catastrophic loss of jobs the previous year. But keep tossing out the bogus stat.

Matthew Sablan: Be careful of what you wish for. Many people in those capacities earn no income but retain liabilities. Make yourself feel better by incorporating and making yourself the CEO of your new company. It will only cost you a few hundred bucks in legal fees to incorporate and then fees to your local county and then, of course, to your accountant who will have to keep track of the county and city fees and so on.

Jake Diamond: How is it then that there are fewer people employed now than at the beginning of Obama's term in office. How can that be when Obama created so many jobs? Put some progressive math on that, dude.

I think there is probably about a 40% chance that Obama discredits Romney enough to be re-elected.

What Obama and others miss is that it will sow the seeds for a disastrous second term. Aside from Supreme Court appointments, which will be very important, it is hard to see how Obama will have much success in a second term.

Matthew Sablan said..."Oh, and one can, by the way, be CEO of an entity and have absolutely zero involvement in the operations of the entity. If there are any."

-- That sounds like the potential for a surprisingly sweet deal.

================It can be..But it often reflects the reality of a banker or investor putting together a limited partnership, or entity...then leaving for a government position, to head a NGO, or on bosses order at the banking/investing firm to move to a new project.

Out of active management, but still with a stake in the outcome as the investment pans out..in terms of compensation, reputation.

And the paperwork reflects who assembled the long-term investment. For just people buying and selling the shares of the partnership or entity knowing by disclosure requirements.

And if a Tim Geithner, a Steve Rattner, a Hillary Rosen, or dude now off with the Soros Foundation or on the Romney Campaign put it together..(Felons all??)I am sure Geithner has all sorts of documents saying he no longer had any active management role at Goldman-Sachs once he became Treasury Secretary.Yet Tims name is ALL OVER Goldman Sachs documents for various investment entities, partnerships, ongoing mergers, loans HE helped create!!

And Tim Geithner, and Rattner, and so on...still got compensation after they left active management!!!

Obama is such a fucking clueless on the economy sort of law lecturer that he doesn't know that half of his economic team in the White House have the same situation and "papers" on their former firms as Romney does.

And that doesn't even include the wealthy lawyers that left firms with ongoing investments and litigation they were part of that could land them money...even while they are not in the Boardroom, but in rooms in the Whitehouse and Fed Offices.

Cedarford has it right. To understand this all a bit more it is useful to go to the sec.gov site and look at the filings of any company that is required to register and file. Bain has at least sixty filing entities. General Electric many more. Go, progs, look. See.

The fact the incumbent still polls below 50% is the only thing that matters right now.

The Obama attack ad is desperate - like a Japanese Banzai or the German December offensive through the Ardennes Forest (aka "Battle of the Bulge) - a sign they are losing, rather than winning.

However, the real issue, the only issue, is this: is a significant cohort of Obama voters in enough states smart enough to realize their votes were a mistake, and they correct the mistake this time around? All the rest is window dressing.

"I think there is probably about a 40% chance that Obama discredits Romney enough to be re-elected."

I wish.

You have to start with all the Obama voters, and then ask, "How many of them are smart enough to have learned from their mistake?"

Based upon the evidence, the average Obama voter can't be presumed to be smart enough to come to that conclusion on his or her own.

The last four years?

Not enough time for dimwitted folks to learn the lesson.

So Romney has to make a case for himself without stating the obvious - that Obama voters fucked up - and that they can't be trusted to think straight with the power of the franchise.

Obama's case to these voters is much easier - he knows exactly how dimwitted they are - and he doesn't have to earn their vote again. All he has to do is paint Romney has some kind of scary guy, and all of Obama's long record of incompetence will not matter.

Stupid people don't care about competence. They find the lack of competence somewhat endearing. It makes their own failures so much more tolerable.

Regardless of how hard the Mittster tries to look "human," until he releases his tax returns (Name the last modern day presiential candidate who refused to release his tax returns.) and explains why as CEO, President, and salaried sole owner of Bain...he had absolutely nothing to do with any decisions relating to investment, employment or running of the company.

I never understand why it is vitally important Romney reveal his tax records, yet it is ridiculous for us to know things like how the government decided arming Mexican drug cartels was a good idea. How come one deserves to be in the public record, but the other not?

Also, he's right. Look what they did to Palin. They opened up to the masses to comb through her emails to try and find dirt. They wouldn't even bother to read Obama's book to find things out about him. Why should Romney play their silly reindeer games?

Love: How can you be sole owner of a partnership? Bain is a partnership isn't it? And his partners own nothing? Please explain.

He had nothing to do with the things you list because he was running the Olympics out in Utah. Our current president could not run either the Olympics or Bain Capital much less both. Are you suggesting that Romney was running Bain Capital at the same time as he was running the Olympics in Utah?

I just today said to someone essentially what Tim said. There are too many stupid people voting to believe that Obama isn't going to get reelected. I know it's mean to call them stupid, but honestly...it's just true. They watch these stupid ads and then make their choice. And they listen to Oprah and Couric-types. And yes, it's mostly women. How embarrassing.

Unless the same stupid people (mostly women) stay home, it will be close.

Michael - Once again; name a modern day president who has release only one full year of tax returns.

Why is not releasing them?

What is he hiding?

How can it possibly help his campaign?

Why would it make Americans trust him?

Why don't YOU care?

Let's take a guess: He's paid much less in taxes than we think, he's made more money that we thought, he's hidden massive amounts of money in offshore accounts, etc., sheltering it from taxes...and of course when it comes to you and others here; the reason you don't care is because you're so intent on hating anything Obama...you fall into the standard teabagger category of uninformed voters.

And that's why the Mittster is going to get his lying ass kicked in November.

If Obama is so instrumental in righting the economic ship, explain why the rest of the world, with few exceptions, is having the same kinds of economic problems (and much worse in some case) as America? Suddenly ALL of the leaders of all of these other countries have forgotten how to run the show?

And please...what would possible make you think any president could straighten this kind of situation (biggest recession since the Great Depression) in 3.5 years...with the party Of "NO" stopping or stalling literally ANYTHING proposed?

You can whine all you want, but until the Mittster exaplins what his grand plan is (other than cutting taxes)...he's toast.

Obama's attacks have already tricked Romney into staying even or just barely pulling ahead in the polls. They have also tricked young and minority voters into having low enthusiasm for voting. Obama's policies have also tricked the economy into staying stagnant so they will rebound even more spectacularly a year or two from now.

Much of the time that is true. Except it will not hurt him if Romney responds by acting like a whiny pussy, "Stop being mean to me!"

That just makes Romney look weak, and no one likes weak. No one respects the weak. People dislike weak even more than they dislike bullies. You don't need to read Machiavelli to know that people may not like bullies, but they respect them for their strength. If Obama can play the thug and Romney responds by crying about it, Obama wins that round.

Obama is also not hurt by being too negative if, instead of whining, Romney responds with variations on "I am not a crook." All of those complaints that Romney destroyed jobs at Bain, etc. are lies only perpetuates and reinforces the lie. When Romney complains, all people hear is "Romney destroyed jobs at Bain" and they don't hear the part about "that is a lie."

I will give Love one point, a president can't "fix" the economy, but they sure can refrain from taking a sledgehammer to it, in the form of blocking pipelines and sending oil platforms packing, sending uncounted billions overseas and keeping the price of gas high.

I don't give a damn how much money Romney made or how much he might have paid in taxes. In fact, if he's managed to keep more of it out of the clutches of this corrupt cuttlefish of a government and its bottom-feeding parasites like shiloh and jeremy/love, I applaud him.

But it's funny beyond belief to think that the corrupt Democrat media complex which brought us Rick Perry's college grades and Sarah Palin's private e-mails within days are now utterly incapable of dredging up Romney's tax releases. As far as I'm concerned, the longer he tells the press and Obama (BIRM) to pound sand, good for him.

But really, Jeremy - your Little Black Jesus has never released his college transcripts. To quote you, why is he not releasing them? What is he hiding? How can it possibly help his campaign? Why would it make Americans trust him? Why don't YOU care?

Let's take a guess: he's not nearly as intelligent as you think he is, and barely skated through Punahou High in a choom-addled haze. He's an AA baby who was enrolled in college only because he was a pleasant mocha color, his abysmal test scores revealing that he couldn't spell 'cocaine' if you spotted him the letters C,O,A,I and E and let him pick a consonant. The reason you don't care is because you're so intent on hating anything Republican, you fall into the standard lefty pattern of Obama fellators.

So take your "duh," shove it up your ass next to your head and go back to wanking off over your basket-making students' facebook pictures, Gene.

And please...what would possible make you think any president could straighten this kind of situation (biggest recession since the Great Depression) in 3.5 years...with the party Of "NO" stopping or stalling literally ANYTHING proposed?

You can whine all you want, but until the Mittster exaplins what his grand plan is (other than cutting taxes)...he's toast.

Which of these two mutually contradictory arguments are you actually trying to put forth?

Look, you guys don't really care about someone's taxes unless it's a Republican. Timothy Geithner was just fine with you people, even as head of the Treasury - the very department he ripped off, and then claimed stupidity as an excuse. That's fine.

If you want to know why he's not releasing them, think about birthers ans how Obama made use of their incessant attacks. You guys are the new birthers.

He will wait until you thoroughly make fools of yourselves, and then he will release them to show the man is competent, honest, successful, and has given many times more money to charity than Obama has even manged to make, and he did by creating jobs and wealth, rather than writing stories about himself.

Keep it up - you're doing your very best hypocritical work, and Romney thanks you.

And please...what would possible make you think any president could straighten this kind of situation (biggest recession since the Great Depression) in 3.5 years...with the party Of "NO" stopping or stalling literally ANYTHING proposed?

Jackass:

Harry Reid has controlled the Senate since January of 2007.

The Dems controlled the House for the first two years of the Obama Presidency.

You can stop this meme any time now.

Further, since the stimulus failed, and Obama said it would lower U/E to under 6% by now, your entire premise that legislation is needed to "fix" anything is false.

"I disagree. If you were right, the trolls would be posting something other than outright, easily disproved lies."

No.

Lies are all they have. Obama's record is atrocious.

But all the rest presumes enough Obama voters, in enough key states, are smart enough to flip from Obama to Romney.

Do you see any evidence of that?

I don't.

Nor do I expect to.

One of the reasons stupid people are stupid is because they keep doing stupid things.

Like voting for Obama. If I could see a trust-worthy poll that showed something between 15-20% of Obama voters were in fact planning to vote for Romney, I would have a different assessment of this race.

Look, you guys don't really care about someone's taxes unless it's a Republican. Timothy Geithner was just fine with you people, even as head of the Treasury - the very department he ripped off, and then claimed stupidity as an excuse. That's fine.

Heck, let's put it all on the table. He was given EXTRA money by his employer to pay that tax. He signed paperwork stating he was paying that tax.

Stupidity doesn't enter the equation here.

That just makes Romney look weak, and no one likes weak. No one respects the weak.

In what way is Romney looking weak here? He isn't the one having to lie about his opponent incessantly.

He is also utterly defanging the inevitable "Man, the Republicans are mean. Romney should call off his attack dogs" meme Obama will try come August/September.

Obama is also not hurt by being too negative if, instead of whining, Romney responds with variations on "I am not a crook." All of those complaints that Romney destroyed jobs at Bain, etc. are lies only perpetuates and reinforces the lie. When Romney complains, all people hear is "Romney destroyed jobs at Bain" and they don't hear the part about "that is a lie."

And you think Romney isn't going to obliterate Obama with nasty ads at the end, when people pay attention?

And Obama can't do the usual Democratic chiding of "negative campaigning" since it, literally, is all he has done to date.

And please...what would possible make you think any president could straighten this kind of situation (biggest recession since the Great Depression) in 3.5 years...with the party Of "NO" stopping or stalling literally ANYTHING proposed?

The Republicans run the Senate, where Reid won't allow votes on much of anything nowadays?